Think of how many times (millions) we've seen Fed in an impossible position at the end of a long rally, the other guy is at the net. And then Fed hits one of his patented bh passing shots, or gets it back right the the feet with impossible accuracy and spin. That shot has saved countless bp's.

I guarantee you, no other player in history would be able to hit clutch backhands with that much variety. For ~5 years, every single player went after Fed's backhand, and with the exception of Nadal, no one was able to make an impression.

Think of how many times (millions) we've seen Fed in an impossible position at the end of a long rally, the other guy is at the net. And then Fed hits one of his patented bh passing shots, or gets it back right the the feet with impossible accuracy and spin. That shot has saved countless bp's.

I guarantee you, no other player in history would be able to hit clutch backhands with that much variety. For ~5 years, every single player went after Fed's backhand, and with the exception of Nadal, no one was able to make an impression.

Click to expand...

Wrong. I won't even bother arguing but you are clearly wrong, as there are players with much better backhands then Federer in this era let alone the entire history of tennis.

And yeah, those players hit just as good passing shots as Federer. They played against tougher opponents too (that were better at the net on top of that).

No backhand in the history of the game is going to consistently win crosscourt backhand to forehand battles with Nadal because no backhand in the history of the game is anywhere near as good as Nadal's forehand. Forehands > backhands.

Click to expand...

You took one sentence out of my post, isolated it and criticized it. You gave no regard to the context of it. I was referring to Nadal's forehand being the greatest weapon in the world to exploit Federer's tiny weakness. It IS a weakness, or Federer could protect it. And I call bull***** on your bold comments. There are 2handers that he cannot hit thru, crosscourt. He can only pull them wide and hit down the line.

I don't care about your opinions. If you want to classify Federer's 1hander as one of the greatest in history, that's great. I do not think that it is. Just don't take my comments out of context and try to build your trolling reputation on that.

I think Fed's slice BH is one of the best slice BH's in the history of the game....probably the best but I didn't get to see Rosewall and some of the other BH greats play. His topspin BH, while being among the most beautiful shots, is not the best in today's game....Gasquet, Wawrinka and a few others have more penetrating topspin BH's in my opinion.Sadly, the one hander seems to be going the way of the dodo.

Click to expand...

Now, finally someone is making sense. I was going to mention that to above bored, but thankfully I won't have to at this point. Federer's slice is absolutely the most valuable backhand that he hits. At his best, he uses it defensively and to bide a little time so he can set up his forehand. There have surely been equally effective slice backhands in history, but I have not seen Rosewall enough, either.

I also agree with your bold comments. But, the 1 hander is (generally) just not as stable as a 2hander and I think that is the difference. You have to have much better timing with the 1 hander because it is simply not as forgiving as a stroke, compared to the 2hander. Add the tremendous pace of the groundstrokes and serves today and it makes it even tougher to time the flat or topspin 1hander.

Look, what are we talking about? The most beautiful 1hbh, the most effective 1hbh, the most consistent 1hbh, the most powerful 1hbh? You can watch matches and make subjective comments about Wawrinka's 1hbh. Or you can look at stat sheets to see how many winners are hit off of the 1hbh.

As far as Federer is concerned, his forehand is arguably the best in history and it is much, much better than his backhand. Agassi had a similar issue. His 2hbh is arguably the greatest in history, but his forehand is not in the top 10(IMO). As a 1-2 punch, these 2 guys are possibly the best, but if you isolate their weaker shot and compare it to their best shot, its pretty obvious why its called their weaker shot.

Also, Nadal is able to exploit Federer's backhand, because it is a 1hbh. A 2hander is generally more stable and can more easily handle the high kicking shots. Nadal is not able to exploit 2 handers in the same way as the 1hander. He CAN, but it is usually a function of being able to pull a 2hander wide. With Federer, Nadal can rush his 1hbh, he can push him back and he can kick the ball above his shoulder. Nadal, generally, would not be able to exploit those 3 against a world class 2hbh.

Click to expand...

There's more to a shot than how many winners you hit with it. One has to also consider how many points it helps you win. Wawrinka has hit more aces than Federer after 4 matches at the Australian Open, but I would still say Federer has the better serve because, aside from the winners he achieves, it creates a lot of forced errors and sets up a lot of points which give him the advantage, even though it's not as powerful as Wawrinka's.

As for their backhands, I don't know who hit the most backhand winners at the end of last year, but the success of your game and your strokes depend on so much more than your winner count. One could achieve a higher winner count by taking more risks, but at the same time make more errors and lose more matches. What use would having a high number of winners be then? Professional tennis is about playing the percentages, being tactically smart and ultimately winning matches, not trying to hit the highest number of winners.

From Federer's last press conference:

"But it's about setting up the plays right. That's why for me those kind of statistics don't mean a whole lot to me. It's sort of more how many points do you win on second serves and returns and all those kind of things. So it's not just winners and error count that matters to me".

Also, I would put Agassi's forehand in at least the top 5 all-time and possibly the top 2 or 3.

Lastly, if Nadal being able to exploit Federer's backhand is a function of Federer's backhand being one-handed, then it is redundant to talk about it as if it is a unique quality about Federer's backhand which is causing the problem rather than a unique quality in all one-handed backhands.

You took one sentence out of my post, isolated it and criticized it. You gave no regard to the context of it. I was referring to Nadal's forehand being the greatest weapon in the world to exploit Federer's tiny weakness. It IS a weakness, or Federer could protect it. And I call bull***** on your bold comments. There are 2handers that he cannot hit thru, crosscourt. He can only pull them wide and hit down the line.

I don't care about your opinions. If you want to classify Federer's 1hander as one of the greatest in history, that's great. I do not think that it is. Just don't take my comments out of context and try to build your trolling reputation on that.

Click to expand...

Since when does Nadal hit through Federer's backhand? This is not what happens. Seems to me the strategy of pulling players wide and hitting down the line is what he does to everyone, including Federer. Also, it's not like Federer has not beaten Nadal and had many other close matches with him, most of which have taken place on clay. Federer does better than most.

There's more to a shot than how many winners you hit with it. One has to also consider how many points it helps you win. .....but I would still say Federer has the better serve because, aside from the winners he achieves....

..Professional tennis is about playing the percentages, being tactically smart and ultimately winning matches, not trying to hit the highest number of winners...

Click to expand...

Yep. And people underrate Federer's slice - without doubt the best in the game and has helped win him thousands of points a few shots later because of unsettling opponents or allowing him to stay in the point safely until the right moment to attack comes.

Backhands aren't all about hitting winners like Wawrinka's in the past few matches - most of which were hit off easy, short balls in the middle 2m of the court. He hit some amazing shots sure but the majority were right in his perfect hitting zone. He wont get than all day from truly top players - which Roddick and Monfils are not.

Yep. And people underrate Federer's slice - without doubt the best in the game and has helped win him thousands of points a few shots later because of unsettling opponents or allowing him to stay in the point safely until the right moment to attack comes.

Backhands aren't all about hitting winners like Wawrinka's in the past few matches - most of which were hit off easy, short balls in the middle 2m of the court. He hit some amazing shots sure but the majority were right in his perfect hitting zone. He wont get than all day from truly top players - which Roddick and Monfils are not.

Click to expand...

The thing is that Wawrinka doesn't just HAVE a flat BH, he has angles, heavy topspin, can hit it from anywhere in the court, and he's good at the net and has a pretty good slice to boot. Federer may have the better slice, but Wawrinka can drive and is much more consistent with his topspin shot, and in todays game the topspin shot is much more important.

Therefore, most people deem Wawrinka's backhand to be better, not just because he can hit winners, but he is deadly accurate, consistent, can hit it heavy, and can hit it hard for winners too.

And Roddick and Monfils not top players? Berdych not one either I guess? These are all top 20 players, regardless of what you say, they are "top" players. They are not the elite level players, but they are very good.

I didn't say he didn't have a good slice. I said Federer's was by far the best in the game, which it is. Wawrinka's is nowhere near as good for all situations. He's not played anyone yet at the AO that has really pushed him hard point after point.

....but Wawrinka can drive and is much more consistent with his topspin shot

Click to expand...

Repeating yourself doesn't make things more true, nor your argument persuasive. I agree with you based on the past few matches but, career-long, Wawrinka has had lulls in form with his backhand form. Federer has too but has usually shown he can overcome that issue with his other strengths.

Anyway... People who are saying Wawrinka is an amazing, almost unbeatable, player at the moment are using the same flawed logic as saying Nadal's beating of Tomic is proof Nadal is the best player. Playing kooks like Roddick, who is in reality closer in form to John Isner than he is any real top player, or a brain-farting clown like Monfils is not the exactly the best benchmark for success or form.

There's more to a shot than how many winners you hit with it. One has to also consider how many points it helps you win. Wawrinka has hit more aces than Federer after 4 matches at the Australian Open, but I would still say Federer has the better serve because, aside from the winners he achieves, it creates a lot of forced errors and sets up a lot of points which give him the advantage, even though it's not as powerful as Wawrinka's.

As for their backhands, I don't know who hit the most backhand winners at the end of last year, but the success of your game and your strokes depend on so much more than your winner count. One could achieve a higher winner count by taking more risks, but at the same time make more errors and lose more matches. What use would having a high number of winners be then? Professional tennis is about playing the percentages, being tactically smart and ultimately winning matches, not trying to hit the highest number of winners.

From Federer's last press conference:

"But it's about setting up the plays right. That's why for me those kind of statistics don't mean a whole lot to me. It's sort of more how many points do you win on second serves and returns and all those kind of things. So it's not just winners and error count that matters to me".

Also, I would put Agassi's forehand in at least the top 5 all-time and possibly the top 2 or 3.

Lastly, if Nadal being able to exploit Federer's backhand is a function of Federer's backhand being one-handed, then it is redundant to talk about it as if it is a unique quality about Federer's backhand which is causing the problem rather than a unique quality in all one-handed backhands.

Click to expand...

You are extremely thick headed or one of the most passive aggressive posters I have ever read. My whole point was to let you in on a little something. ITS SUBJECTIVE! Those questions I was asking were rhetorical. That means they don't need to be answered. If you are going to say that Federer has one of the best backhands of all time, then show me the measurable proof. You can't. Because it is just your opinion against everybody else. We can even agree that winners don't tell the whole story and that IS measurable.

And we are talking about 1hbhs. Exactly. The reason I am being redundant is because you don't get it. Would you say that Federer has one of the best backhands in the world? Not 1hbhs, just BACKHANDS. I want you, above bored, to answer that question. What Federer does have, that you have not addressed to me, is one of the best SLICE backhands. Relative to the current game, he does not have one of the best overall backhands in the world. If he could, Federer would hit all forehands. Because he is not as confident in his backhand. That is a weakness. And if the majority of his opponents hit 2hbhs, you have to realize that he is at a disadvantage. His most effective backhand is the slice, using it to defend and give him space to set up the forehand. Your sweeping statements can be picked apart, just like Nadal picks apart your boy Rogers' "top 5" backhand.

Since when does Nadal hit through Federer's backhand? This is not what happens. Seems to me the strategy of pulling players wide and hitting down the line is what he does to everyone, including Federer. Also, it's not like Federer has not beaten Nadal and had many other close matches with him, most of which have taken place on clay. Federer does better than most.

Click to expand...

How many times have you seen Nadal kick a forehand above Roger's shoulder, then watch Roger float back a weak slice that Nadal hits for groundstroke or volley winner? Quite a few, if you watch tennis. How many times have you seen Roger rushed by Nadal on the backhand, mishit the ball out or hit short and watch Nadal clean up the mess? Quite a few, if you watch tennis. How many times have we seen Nadal push Roger back by hammering his forehand to the great Federer backhand, get that inevitable weak short ball and hit a drop shot winner while Federer stands 12 ft behind the baseline screaming at his racquet? Quite a few times, if you watch tennis.

Hitting his forehand to Federer's backhand, Nadal outhits him. Nadal pulls him wide. Nadal rushes him. Nadal pushes him back. Nadal overpowers him. If you don't believe that is hitting through him, or competely dominating him, then you are in a state of complete denial.

I can tell you are grasping for straws now. When somebody starts to pull out the "most of which have been played on clay" card, when discussing Federer's losses to Nadal, they are running out of bull*hit. But the classic last line proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that I WIN this discussion. The GOAT, the best player in the world, the most talented player to ever play the game is reduced to this comment, "Federer does better than most." How pathetic. Bye bye, loser.

I didn't say he just had a flat backhand anywhere in my post, nor imply it.

I didn't say he didn't have a good slice. I said Federer's was by far the best in the game, which it is. Wawrinka's is nowhere near as good for all situations. He's not played anyone yet at the AO that has really pushed him hard point after point.

Repeating yourself doesn't make things more true, nor your argument persuasive. I agree with you based on the past few matches but, career-long, Wawrinka has had lulls in form with his backhand form. Federer has too but has usually shown he can overcome that issue with his other strengths.

Anyway... People who are saying Wawrinka is an amazing, almost unbeatable, player at the moment are using the same flawed logic as saying Nadal's beating of Tomic is proof Nadal is the best player. Playing kooks like Roddick, who is in reality closer in form to John Isner than he is any real top player, or a brain-farting clown like Monfils is not the exactly the best benchmark for success or form.

Click to expand...

Those clowns are both top 20 players, Roddick being a top 10 player since like 2002, so you really aren't being very persuasive with your argument either. Based on your arguments Federer is a horrible player who is getting lucky since guys like Simon and Robredo are taking sets (Simon taking 2).

Federer's slice backhand is the best, but being the best at a shot that at best is a change up in todays game and not a standard shot doesn't really matter much. For instance, Hewitt has the best backhand topspin lob in the game probably still, doesn't make him have the best backhand.

Your logic is horrible because just because Federer has a variety of backhands, doesn't make it better than Wawrinkas. Wawrinkas ONE topspin backhand alone outclasses almost everything Federer can do with his backhand, because the topspin shot is MORE important in todays game. It's like saying "Oh, well Federer can hit every serve so it's better than Karlovic or Isner's serve". It's beyond dumb. The quality that Wawrinka produces off of his backhand far exceeds anything Federer can do with his.

Those clowns are both top 20 players, Roddick being a top 10 player since like 2002, so you really aren't being very persuasive with your argument either.

Click to expand...

They are though - based on long-term results relative to their top peers. The only way either can beat the top players is to have an amazing day while the other guy has an average or bad day. This happens but a few times a year. Roddick especially is obsolete in his playing style, movement and tactics. His serve alone is delaying his plummet in the rankings.

Your logic is horrible because just because Federer has a variety of backhands, doesn't make it better than Wawrinkas.

Click to expand...

I don't think you quite caught the jist of my point. Federer does have a good backhand - he's shown that over his whole career. Wawrinka however has one too and, on current form, it looks better. I think the trade-off here is Federer can make it through most of his 'bad backhand' days with his almost infallible slice. Wawrinka hasn't shown that he can. Nor has he shown his backhand form enough when playing truly top players who hit deep, with variety, move well and play smart - which neither Roddick of Monfils did here.

The point about Karlovic/Isner serve etc is just drivel and you know it.

They are though - based on long-term results relative to their top peers. The only way either can beat the top players is to have an amazing day while the other guy has an average or bad day. This happens but a few times a year. Roddick especially is obsolete in his playing style, movement and tactics. His serve alone is delaying his plummet in the rankings.

I don't think you quite caught the jist of my point. Federer does have a good backhand - he's shown that over his whole career. Wawrinka however has one too and, on current form, it looks better. I think the trade-off here is Federer can make it through most of his 'bad backhand' days with his almost infallible slice. Wawrinka hasn't shown that he can. Nor has he shown his backhand form enough when playing truly top players who hit deep, with variety, move well and play smart - which neither Roddick of Monfils did here.

The point about Karlovic/Isner serve etc is just drivel and you know it.

Click to expand...

Seriously you need to give up the ghost. Wawrinka was able to outhit Murray off the backhand wing in both their US Open and Wimbledon matches. Murray himself is considered to have one of the best backhands in the mens game, but he could not cope with the pace and angles Wawrinka was generating (particularly at the US Open). Wawrinka hit more backhand winners than Murray in both matches. So by your definition, Wawrinka has shown his backhand form when playing a top player who hits deep, with variety and moves well. Unless you think Murray does not possess these attributes.

Seriously you need to give up the ghost. .... .the pace and angles Wawrinka was generating (particularly at the US Open). Wawrinka hit more backhand winners than Murray in both matches. So by your definition, Wawrinka has shown his backhand form when playing a top player who hits deep, with variety and moves well..

Click to expand...

You should reply to what is written as opposed to what you think was written.

I was referring to backhand form over a career-long trend/time-frame - as signified by this passage: "shown that over his whole career..." and not one or two matches.

Of course people can have good matched or tournaments - but they rarely significantly alter the long-term trend. That was my point. Beating an immobile and largely clueless Roddick, a brain-fading Monfils and a couple of good wins over Murray having an off-day doesn't automatically signify the next coming of the backhand of Christ. When Wawrinka has stomped on Nadal/Federer and other top players a few more times it would be fair to say the trend is changing.

You should reply to what is written as opposed to what you think was written.

I was referring to backhand form over a career-long trend/time-frame - as signified by this passage: "shown that over his whole career..." and not one or two matches.

Of course people can have good matched or tournaments - but they rarely significantly alter the long-term trend. That was my point. Beating an immobile and largely clueless Roddick, a brain-fading Monfils and a couple of good wins over Murray having an off-day doesn't automatically signify the next coming of the backhand of Christ. When Wawrinka has stomped on Nadal/Federer and other top players a few more times it would be fair to say the trend is changing.

I never said that anywhere, nor implied it. Your manic thought process led you to infer something, incorrectly, from what was actually written. Probably just enthusiasm for the subject.

Click to expand...

LOL what has Wawrinka done to **** you off so much?

Wawrinka's backhand has ALWAYS been this good. It is his forehand, second serve, and poor mobility that has held him back, along with his amazing ability to choke when the tough gets going.

The point with the Isner/Karlovic comment is that Wawrinka's one single shot is more important then Federer's variety. Variety means nothing in this game; Nadal is possibly the most dominant one dimensional player in the history of the game, even more so then Ivan Lendl. Part of it has to do with the fact that variety is no longer the key to winning; it's being able to move well and hit alot of balls back.

Being able to hit a consistent topspin drive is more important then being able to slice in this day and age; Federer has been able to scrape through matches when his backhand is off because he moves well, serves well, and has quite likely the best forehand of all time. Results do not factor into who has the better stroke; I don't think you are getting that point.

And those players are still top 20 players. No matter how you spin it, they are still in the top 1% of the professional tennis world, so I would say they are pretty good.

You should reply to what is written as opposed to what you think was written.

I was referring to backhand form over a career-long trend/time-frame - as signified by this passage: "shown that over his whole career..." and not one or two matches.

Of course people can have good matched or tournaments - but they rarely significantly alter the long-term trend. That was my point. Beating an immobile and largely clueless Roddick, a brain-fading Monfils and a couple of good wins over Murray having an off-day doesn't automatically signify the next coming of the backhand of Christ. When Wawrinka has stomped on Nadal/Federer and other top players a few more times it would be fair to say the trend is changing.

I never said that anywhere, nor implied it. Your manic thought process led you to infer something, incorrectly, from what was actually written. Probably just enthusiasm for the subject.

Click to expand...

I think you need to realize that Fed can get away with bad backhand days because he is a better player, not because of his backhand slice. Yes, the backhand of his is adaptable to crap days, but moreso than his slice, the rest of his game picks up the slack. Or he loses. Or it's good and he wins, or even loses (see Aussie Open 09).

Now Wawrinka: He loses because of his game in general, not his backhand alone. Can his backhand be misfiring? Sure. Can he still lose when his backhand is sublime? Yes (see Wimbledon 09).

You're ignoring the rest of Federer vs Wawrinka's games and attributing all losses, consistency, and peak play to backhands.

FYI: Nadal is number one currently and he does not have the best 2HBH.

I think you need to realize that Fed can get away with bad backhand days because he is a better player, not because of his backhand slice.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's easy to see. I never suggested that (what you say above) was the case at all, rather that he can cover his bad (topspin) back-hand days well including with hit slice which has yet to have bad days the likes of which his topspin BH does.

Now Wawrinka: He loses because of his game in general, not his backhand alone. ...

You're ignoring the rest of Federer vs Wawrinka's games...

Click to expand...

I didn't ignore the rest of their games at all. The point I made quite clearly a couple of times that Wawrinka is not normally as good as he's looked in the past two matches. That is more likely to do with the serious shortcomings of his opponents rather than some spike in ability. He's always had a good backhand, only a muppet would deny that, but he's also routinely beaten by top players who can play with more creativity than the efforts of Roddick and Monfils.

Yep. A 5 year old could see that. I never suggested that was the case at all, rather that he can cover his bad (topspin) back-hand days well including with hit slice which has yet to have bad days the likes of which his topspin BH has.

I didn't ignore the rest of their games at all. The point I made quite clearly a couple of times that Wawrinka is not normally as good as he's looked in the past two matches and that is likely more to do with the serious shortcomings of his opponents rather than some spike in ability. He's always had a good backhand, only a muppet would deny that, but he's also routinely beaten by top players who can play with more creativity than the efforts of Roddick and Monfils.

Click to expand...

And these are players that Wawrinka used to lose to. He also beat Berdych in Chennai. So now the only other top players left I can think of above those guys are Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, and Andy Murray. Wawrinka has shown that he can beat Andy Murray, beaten Federer on clay before, and has given Nadal and Djokovic tough matches.

I'm not seeing your point. You're saying that Monfils and Roddick were weak opponents? Sure. When you compare them to the way Stan was playing, yeah, they were weak. For the most part though, year in and year out, these guys (Roddick and Monfils) are beating 99% of the ATP tour though.

So how are Roddick and Monfils not top players? Who is a top player then? Only Federer and Nadal then? You realize the world of tennis exists outside of those two right?

I'm not seeing your point. You're saying that Monfils and Roddick were weak opponents? Sure. When you compare them to the way Stan was playing, yeah, they were weak....

Click to expand...

Simple point: That Roddick and Monfils are not as good as Nadal, Federer, Murray, Djokovic 9 times out of 10 - probably more. The gap in ability is significant and one which some here seem of conveniently ignore when claiming the Roddick match as evidence of Wawrinka being awesome.

Sure, he played great games and held it together well. Playing the top echelon of players will be the true test (as it is with every great white hope who has a magical run at a slam).

This is a joke, anyone who says Federer has a better backhand better than Wawrinka is kidding themselves. How bout I bring up the fact that Federer against Hewitt in their 05 semi-final hit like maybe 5 backhand winners over the course of 4 sets IN HIS PRIME, when his backhand was actually good. Federer has NEVER littered up the stat sheet with his backhand. The only match I can remember him doing well numbers wise was against Blake in the Shanghai TMC in 06.

Wawrinka had something like 15+ backhand winners through 4 sets. Total joke of a comparison; Wawrinka clearly has a much stronger backhand.

Click to expand...

This is unbelievable - to see you reach a conclusion that Wawrinka has a stronger backhand from 2 paragraphs and from saying that in one match Federer only hit 5 winners with his BH and in another Wawrinka hit 15, so it means his BH is better, is unbelievable - again, another fan who has no knowledge of tennis and is out spouting his opinion.

And these are players that Wawrinka used to lose to. He also beat Berdych in Chennai. So now the only other top players left I can think of above those guys are Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, and Andy Murray. Wawrinka has shown that he can beat Andy Murray, beaten Federer on clay before, and has given Nadal and Djokovic tough matches.

I'm not seeing your point. You're saying that Monfils and Roddick were weak opponents? Sure. When you compare them to the way Stan was playing, yeah, they were weak. For the most part though, year in and year out, these guys (Roddick and Monfils) are beating 99% of the ATP tour though.

So how are Roddick and Monfils not top players? Who is a top player then? Only Federer and Nadal then? You realize the world of tennis exists outside of those two right?

Click to expand...

I don't think he's taken a set from Nadal. Lost every match he's played against him in pretty much straight sets.

Simple point: That Roddick and Monfils are not as good as Nadal, Federer, Murray, Djokovic 9 times out of 10 - probably more. The gap in ability is significant and one which some here seem of conveniently ignore when claiming the Roddick match as evidence of Wawrinka being awesome.

Sure, he played great games and held it together well. Playing the top echelon of players will be the true test (as it is with every great white hope who has a magical run at a slam).

Click to expand...

But you said top players, and Roddick and Monfils are clearly top players. They are in the top 1% out of all professionals, Roddick being in an elite few who has ever won a slam.

Roddick is still 1 up on Murray until further notice, and is even with Djokovic. Federer and Nadal aren't even fair comparisons when they are an elite pair that historical no one has seen before.

This is unbelievable - to see you reach a conclusion that Wawrinka has a stronger backhand from 2 paragraphs and from saying that in one match Federer only hit 5 winners with his BH and in another Wawrinka hit 15, so it means his BH is better, is unbelievable - again, another fan who has no knowledge of tennis and is out spouting his opinion.

Amazing to see posts like this - fans who have absolutely no knowledge of tennis whatsoever.

Soderling, Berdych and Del Potro have exploited it several times during the Majors.

I don't think he's taken a set from Nadal. Lost every match he's played against him in pretty much straight sets.

Click to expand...

Woo woo, troll under another identity. Why is it I am seeing the same recycled troll names over and over again?

Federer historically has never littered up the stat sheets or imposed his will upon opponents with his backhand. This is a historical fact to anyone who has watched tennis.

Wawrinka historically so far has dominated opponents in cross court exchanges with his backhand, can do everything well with his backhand, and is known to be one of the best backhand strikers in the game.

There's your proof troll who keeps coming back after getting banned 100000x times. Your criticisms of me knowing nothing about tennis is hilarious when your blog contains some of the most elementary analysis of tennis I have ever seen.

Federer historically has never littered up the stat sheets or imposed his will upon opponents with his backhand. This is a historical fact to anyone who has watched tennis.

Click to expand...

I think he actually did it once. The match against Blake on the Masters Cup final in 2006. Fed has some great backhand stats there. Don't know if it was very will imposing, but it should have been quite a backhand clinic.

I think he actually did it once. The match against Blake on the Masters Cup final in 2006. Fed has some great backhand stats there. Don't know if it was very will imposing, but it should have been quite a backhand clinic.

Click to expand...

Once, which is an exception. Even during Federer's prime he was unable to hit huge amounts of backhand winners, nor was he able to really impose his will with his backhand. This was very apparent to anyone who watched tennis during his best years.

I don't think you quite caught the jist of my point. Federer does have a good backhand - he's shown that over his whole career. Wawrinka however has one too and, on current form, it looks better. I think the trade-off here is Federer can make it through most of his 'bad backhand' days with his almost infallible slice. Wawrinka hasn't shown that he can. Nor has he shown his backhand form enough when playing truly top players who hit deep, with variety, move well and play smart - which neither Roddick of Monfils did here.

Click to expand...

He outplayed Murray twice in GS matches off the backhand wing in the last 2 years. Yet your claim that he has not shown his backhand form enough playing truely top players who hit deep, with variety and move well is complete b*****t. Outplaying the world no 4, who has one of the best backhands in the game was clear evidence of the Wawrinka bh repertoire.

I am yet to read any valid points in this thread, which argue the case for Federer having an overall better 1hbh than Wawrinka. Other than the flawed logic, that Federer has more variety hence Federer is better.

You are extremely thick headed or one of the most passive aggressive posters I have ever read. My whole point was to let you in on a little something. ITS SUBJECTIVE! Those questions I was asking were rhetorical. That means they don't need to be answered. If you are going to say that Federer has one of the best backhands of all time, then show me the measurable proof. You can't. Because it is just your opinion against everybody else. We can even agree that winners don't tell the whole story and that IS measurable.

And we are talking about 1hbhs. Exactly. The reason I am being redundant is because you don't get it. Would you say that Federer has one of the best backhands in the world? Not 1hbhs, just BACKHANDS. I want you, above bored, to answer that question. What Federer does have, that you have not addressed to me, is one of the best SLICE backhands. Relative to the current game, he does not have one of the best overall backhands in the world. If he could, Federer would hit all forehands. Because he is not as confident in his backhand. That is a weakness. And if the majority of his opponents hit 2hbhs, you have to realize that he is at a disadvantage. His most effective backhand is the slice, using it to defend and give him space to set up the forehand. Your sweeping statements can be picked apart, just like Nadal picks apart your boy Rogers' "top 5" backhand.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. I think Federer's backhand is an outstanding shot, truly. I would go further. I think it is one of the best backhands in the history of the game. I don't see it as a weakness at all. It is simply subject to the same anatomical limitations as everyone else's backhand, which is a trivial observation. The best and worse backhands will always be worse than their respective forehand cousins.

Also, every player would hit all forehands if they could, because the forehand has the potential to cause significantly more damage than the backhand. Given its anatomical advantage, the forehand is the preferred shot of most players. As weapons, backhands do not come close to forehands. Federer clearly has a lot of confidence in his backhand, but he has no interest in rallying all day with it just to prove a point. He obviously wants to give himself the best opportunity of applying pressure to his opponent and winning the point. All advanced players are looking to run around their backhands to engage their forehands if there is the opportunity. That's standard.

How many times have you seen Nadal kick a forehand above Roger's shoulder, then watch Roger float back a weak slice that Nadal hits for groundstroke or volley winner? Quite a few, if you watch tennis. How many times have you seen Roger rushed by Nadal on the backhand, mishit the ball out or hit short and watch Nadal clean up the mess? Quite a few, if you watch tennis. How many times have we seen Nadal push Roger back by hammering his forehand to the great Federer backhand, get that inevitable weak short ball and hit a drop shot winner while Federer stands 12 ft behind the baseline screaming at his racquet? Quite a few times, if you watch tennis.

Hitting his forehand to Federer's backhand, Nadal outhits him. Nadal pulls him wide. Nadal rushes him. Nadal pushes him back. Nadal overpowers him. If you don't believe that is hitting through him, or competely dominating him, then you are in a state of complete denial.

I can tell you are grasping for straws now. When somebody starts to pull out the "most of which have been played on clay" card, when discussing Federer's losses to Nadal, they are running out of bull*hit. But the classic last line proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that I WIN this discussion. The GOAT, the best player in the world, the most talented player to ever play the game is reduced to this comment, "Federer does better than most." How pathetic. Bye bye, loser.

Click to expand...

What I see when Federer and Nadal play are very competitive matches where they succeed and fail by turns at exploiting opportunities in each others games. I don't see what you see, sorry. Their matches are usually very even with a few key points deciding the outcome.

Ad hominem attacks are usually the first indication that an individual is clutching at straws and losing the argument. The individual who states his case calmly with no animus is typically not the loser, to use your term.

I dunno why people are quoting what I and others said about Fed during the US open. Since then a few things have happend, like Fed being bolder and smarter with his backhand (less slice more topspin) even beating Nadal with it at London, despite the Spanianrd directing everything at that backhand side of Fed.

What I see when Federer and Nadal play are very competitive matches where they succeed and fail by turns at exploiting opportunities in each others games. I don't see what you see, sorry. Their matches are usually very even with a few key points deciding the outcome.

Ad hominem attacks are usually the first indication that an individual is clutching at straws and losing the argument. The individual who states his case calmly with no animus is typically not the loser, to use your term.

Click to expand...

You quoted one sentence, out of context, of a post of mine from over 5 months ago. My point was a little tongue in cheek. "If Nadal didn't exist, Federer would probably have one of the best backhands of all time". Ha Ha! Basically underlining the fact that Nadal breaks down Federer's backhand. Nadal attacks it as much as possible and it has paid off. Federer can't do a thing about it on a medium to slow court surface over 5 sets. Federer will have to change tactics to protect his WEAKNESS, or he will continue to lose. The reason that Federer loses to Nadal, is because Nadal owns Federer's backhand.

Now, if you would have looked at my other post from 5 months ago, you would have seen that I admitted that Federer's backhand can certainly fill up a highlight reel on espn, but it is not as stable as many others. It is attackable, compared to his forehand. Also, its vulnerable compared to other backhands. His SLICE backhand is very, very good. He does owe a lot to his slice backhand. But, Nadal beats that up as well over 5 sets.

Ad hominem? Are you kidding me? What about your conduct towards me?
Do you honestly believe that you approached me in an appropriate manner? You didn't disagree with me, you stated for fact that, "Federer's backhand is one of the best backhands in history". That is a verbatim quote of your post. That is your opinion and I don't agree with it. How dare you tell me what I should or shouldn't think about Federer's backhand! Who do you think you are?! Of course that angers me, because you did not approach me like a respectful human should. You attacked my opinion (which was taken out of context) like a sneaky little coward. Above bored, your opinion is no more important than anyone else's on the board. Its subjective. Of course you don't see what I see. You see everything the way you want to see it. Which is in Federer's favor. Unlike Federer's head to head against Nadal.

Oh, and by the way, I don't see you as a typical loser. You stand out in a very special way. You're also a self serving, arrogant jackass.

Maybe you need to watch more of Wawrinka's matches recently. He is doing the polar opposite of staying well behind the baseline and get pushed too far back. His match against Murray (US Open) was a prime example of this, where he was stepping inside the baseline on second serves returns and hitting clean bh winners. Something that requires great timing and precision as you have mentioned. Federer is less reluctant to attack off his backhand on the return of serve, as he's less comfortable hitting shoulder height balls. Hence, the reason for Federer using the slice backhand to try and neutralise rallys. However this tactic is proving to be less effective, against some of the bigger hitters (Soderling, Berdych, Nadal) who have no problem generating their own pace.

I agree Federer takes the ball earlier than Wawrinka, but that does not necessarily mean his backhand is more imposing. If anything it results in him shanking the ball quite often, or coughing up short balls (Soderling French Open), took full advantage of this. Anyway each to his own, and I dont want to give the impression that Federers bh is an 'average' shot, especially when it was firing on all cylinders against Nadal at the WTF. However as Namranger mentioned Federer has never lit up the stats sheet with his backhand winners. Something Wawrinka is able to do consistently.

Click to expand...

You're exactly right. First of all, its a 1hbh. Sure, the 1hander is a flashier shot with more variety in many ways. But it is generally not as stable as the 2hander. It generally takes more effort and timing to execute the 1hbh, offensively. Especially with the pace of shot that we see on the tour today. The 2hander is simply more forgiving. Secondly, I agree that Wawrinka takes the ball a tad later than Federer. But, as you said, Federer often mishits or hits short when facing accurate, heavy hitters. I have said this before, Federer can certainly hit espn worthy highlight shots off the backhand, but I do think it is vulnerable. It can be attacked and it will break down at times.

Well this ends on an odd note for all those who reckoned Wawrinka was going to spank Fed. I think a minority, myself included, could see that a lot of Wawrinka's form was made possible because of the relative kooks he played previously who fed him ideal height, short balls for most of the matches.

As Federer just showed, when you lump on some pressure and play deep more often a player's form can unravel pretty quickly. When you're forced to play the bulk of a match 2m behind the baseline instead of being allowed to stand on it things aren't so dandy.

(Giving him some credit though, he wasn't as good as he's been. How much of that was down to Federer is to be debated. I think it's most of it...)

Well this ends on an odd note for all those who reckoned Wawrinka was going to spank Fed. I think a minority, myself included, could see that a lot of Wawrinka's form was made possible because of the relative kooks he played previously who fed him ideal height, short balls for most of the matches.

As Federer just showed, when you lump on some pressure and play deep more often a player's form can unravel pretty quickly. When you're forced to play the bulk of a match 2m behind the baseline instead of being allowed to stand on it things aren't so dandy.

(Giving him some credit though, he wasn't as good as he's been. How much of that was down to Federer is to be debated. I think it's most of it...)

Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head. Fed put Wawrinka on the move, pushed him back and kept the ball out of his wheelhouse for the most part. I do think that nerves did play a part, but Federer outplayed Wawrinka on the backhand side. Along with every other stroke.

You quoted one sentence, out of context, of a post of mine from over 5 months ago. My point was a little tongue in cheek. "If Nadal didn't exist, Federer would probably have one of the best backhands of all time". Ha Ha! Basically underlining the fact that Nadal breaks down Federer's backhand. Nadal attacks it as much as possible and it has paid off. Federer can't do a thing about it on a medium to slow court surface over 5 sets. Federer will have to change tactics to protect his WEAKNESS, or he will continue to lose. The reason that Federer loses to Nadal, is because Nadal owns Federer's backhand.

Now, if you would have looked at my other post from 5 months ago, you would have seen that I admitted that Federer's backhand can certainly fill up a highlight reel on espn, but it is not as stable as many others. It is attackable, compared to his forehand. Also, its vulnerable compared to other backhands. His SLICE backhand is very, very good. He does owe a lot to his slice backhand. But, Nadal beats that up as well over 5 sets.

Ad hominem? Are you kidding me? What about your conduct towards me?
Do you honestly believe that you approached me in an appropriate manner? You didn't disagree with me, you stated for fact that, "Federer's backhand is one of the best backhands in history". That is a verbatim quote of your post. That is your opinion and I don't agree with it. How dare you tell me what I should or shouldn't think about Federer's backhand! Who do you think you are?! Of course that angers me, because you did not approach me like a respectful human should. You attacked my opinion (which was taken out of context) like a sneaky little coward. Above bored, your opinion is no more important than anyone else's on the board. Its subjective. Of course you don't see what I see. You see everything the way you want to see it. Which is in Federer's favor. Unlike Federer's head to head against Nadal.

Oh, and by the way, I don't see you as a typical loser. You stand out in a very special way. You're also a self serving, arrogant jackass.

Click to expand...

Dude, you need to chill out. If this is how you're going to react to someone who simply disagrees with you, you might want to avoid these boards for the sake of your sanity.

Not bad for a fatty, I don't mean to be superficial, but what is up with his face, he has very bad skin. I had bad skin too, worse than his, but it's fixed now, he has loads of money surely he can jump on the proactive bandwagon *joke* and fix it up, he's on national tv, and he's loaded.

When you have skin pitting scars like Wawrinka, using proactive would be about as useful as a chocolate fire-guard. The damage is already done and would probably require surgery to fix scarring like that.

I've been watching Federer play before he was ever number 1, and his topspin 1HBH has never been very consistent against better players, but I think it definitely has gotten worse over the years possibly due to lack of confidence. That's a fact that players on the tour learn to exploit over the years. He has shanked so many balls in his backhand side that it worries me when he try to hit his backhand now. That's why when you look at stats, Federer hits disproportional amount of inside out forehand compared to other players. Also he hits a huge amount of slices on the backhand side, but you can argue that it's for mixing the game up.

Wawrinka's topspin backhand is definitely more consistent and better than his forehand in many situations. So without a doubt in my mind, if Wawrinka has better 1HBH than Federer.

It was your approach. It was not the fact that you were disagreeing with me. However, now that i have your attention, I apologize for the harsh tone.

Also, last night Federer certainly outplayed Wawrinka on the backhand side.
So, we do know one thing, last night's match absolutely proved that Wawrinka's backhand is NOT better than Federer's.

Click to expand...

Wawrinka played **** poor in his match against Fed at the Aus Open. It was probably his worst performance, in all the matches they have played. In Indian Wells this week, Stan's bh has been on fire against some of the biggest and flattest ball strikers (Berdych and Kolya).

In general, Wawrinka is not a great matchup for Federer as they practice together all the time and Fed can read Stans game alot better than other players. Stan has been playing great tennis though, so if he brings his 'A game' we could be in for a match.

Wawrinka played **** poor in his match against Fed at the Aus Open. It was probably his worst performance, in all the matches they have played. In Indian Wells this week, Stan's bh has been on fire against some of the biggest and flattest ball strikers (Berdych and Kolya).

Click to expand...

Emphasis on the bold, it is generally easier for one-handers to deal with flat hitters.

As for this argument, Wawrinka has a solid backhand, but he doesn't win with his backhand, he wins with combinations, such as backhand opening up the court for the forehand or put-away volley. Gasquet ends points outright (when he's playing with some sort of modicum of confidence) with his backhand, and his finishing skills aren't too shabby either, so I would put Gasquet ahead of Wawrinka (but only slightly).

Watching Gasquet this week (particularly against Murray) he produces flashes of brilliance with the backhand, but overall his rally ball is alot shorter compared to Stan who consistently plays closer to the baseline and hits deeper and more penetrating backhands.